The Netherlands were far better talent wise than their showings. And France won a World Cup (albeit with a side far, far better in terms of quality than the current England side) which earns their manager goodwill? So we accept that a manager who gets their team to a final, wins one and gets knocked out in the first knockout round is at the very least pretty good? Good enough to earn goodwill. But a manager who takes a far less talented side to a semi-final and a penalty shootout in the final is "shit"?
What do we describe all those managers in between those two as then? Or the ones below that?
Like I said, it's a nonsense argument which is divorced from reality. If Southgate is shit then more than hard of the international managers around today are way worse than shit and every England manager since Ramsey is shit (and he only won one tournament with England and got knocked out earlier in the other, so maybe he's shit too?). It's a nonsense, childish system. By any measure Southgate is at least a competent if uninspiring England manager. His consistency of results at major tournaments alone justify that.